From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10848 invoked from network); 9 Sep 1999 13:55:51 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 9 Sep 1999 13:55:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 10370 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 1999 13:55:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7745 Received: (qmail 10363 invoked from network); 9 Sep 1999 13:55:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 15:55:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199909091355.PAA03052@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Andrej Borsenkow"'s message of Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:13:52 +0400 Subject: Re: Silly questions about _arguments & Co (and probably bugs) Andrej Borsenkow wrote: > 1. When are the description of arguments actually printed? I tried some basic > commands like xterm or patch but descriptions do not seem to be printed. You need to do `compconf description_format="--- %d"' or something like that. > 2. Looks, like `-s' is overloaded - it is used both for "single letter options" > and for "option aliases" (from _long_options). I believe, this is the reason why > option aliases do not work any more :-) E.g. ntpd configure lists only --enable > variant - and now no --disable counterparts are recognised. No, the `-s' for the long-option stuff is *only* interpreted if it appears *after* the `--', which needs to be there to make `_arguments' do this automatic-long-option-stuff at all. The `-s' for `use single letter options' has to come as the *first* argument. > 3. I cannot make completion for patch work. As simple as `patch --sTAB' just > beeps. Dunno, works for me. > 4. `patch -pTAB' gives me `patch -p0 ' - but `0' is not autoremoved if I enter > different number (I'd expect it to be). I don't get a `0' inserted automatically here. > 5. `patch TAB' does not list most of the long options at all. Actually, it is > interesting case - if a command has both long and short form - which one should > be preferred? I'd like to have short option only if no corresponding short one > exists. Again, I get all the long options my `patch --help' prints. Hm, this and the `--s' thing above makes me think that maybe you have a different version of `patch' with a different `--help' output. I'd need to see that then. Otherwise: which version do you have? Which patches? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de